Ross v. Wolf et al Doc.

4
Case 3:07-cv-02337-L-LSP Document 4 Filed 12/17/2007 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 VAN J. ROSS, CASE NO. 07cv2337-L (LSP)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) GRANTING
vs. MOTION TO PROCEED IN
13 FORMA PAUPERIS; (2)
DISMISSING COMPLAINT
14 LESLIE WOLF, et al. WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (3)
DENYING REQUEST FOR
15 Defendants. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
16
17 Plaintiff Van J. Ross, proceeding pro se, has submitted a complaint alleging that in
18 December 2000, Defendant Leslie Wolf, a public defender, incorrectly advised him to
19 plead guilty in state court, which resulted in a longer sentence. Defendant also alleges that
20 the state court charged him an excessive amount, apparently for restitution. With his
21 complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and a Request for
22 Appointment of Counsel.
23 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a United States District
24 Court must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a
25 plaintiff’s failure to prepay the fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma
26 pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177
27 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff’s declaration shows he has insufficient income and assets to pay
28 the filing fee. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED.

-1- 07cv2337

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 3:07-cv-02337-L-LSP Document 4 Filed 12/17/2007 Page 2 of 2

1 The court is obligated to review a complaint filed IFP and must dismiss it if it
2 determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief
3 may be granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
4 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001).
5 “[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all
6 allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the
7 plaintiff.” Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000).
8 The allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint may be read in two different ways. They
9 can be read as a claim for professional negligence action against the public defender. In
10 this instance, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as the action does not arise under
11 federal law, and the complaint should be dismissed. Alternatively, the complaint may be
12 read as a claim for violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In
13 this instance, the complaint is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 475 (1994), because a
14 judgment in Plaintiff’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction and
15 sentence.
16 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT
17 PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED AS MOOT.
18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20 DATED: December 17, 2007
21
M. James Lorenz
22 United States District Court Judge
23 COPY TO:
24 HON. LEO S. PAPAS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL
26
27
28

-2- 07cv2337